Comments on: Why can’t people escape poverty? It’s not income, it’s wealthhttp://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/
Chronicling Chicago's public housing, poverty and urban problemsWed, 11 Jun 2014 09:55:57 -0400http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2hourly1By: tim35http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-827
tim35Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:46:23 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-827First, thank you for the kinds words and additional information. You're actually one of my favorite journalists along with Dana Priest and a few others. So I'm a little gob-smacked.
Data about wealth in this country seems fairly difficult to find. For example, I'm intrigued by your 18,000 who made more than $10 million a year. If anyone can be a millionaire, it seems the odds of being in that 18,000 and not the 300 million who aren't, well those are lousy odds.
I'm especially interested in data about inherited wealth. The 18 families worth $185 billion that hired a lobbyist to repeal the estate tax suggests there is a massive amount of wealth concentrated in very few hands. Yet details about that group seem well hidden. You're more likely to hear about CEO pay or Wall Street bonuses which probably is small beer compared to old money.
In any event, thank you for the additional data!First, thank you for the kinds words and additional information. You’re actually one of my favorite journalists along with Dana Priest and a few others. So I’m a little gob-smacked.

Data about wealth in this country seems fairly difficult to find. For example, I’m intrigued by your 18,000 who made more than $10 million a year. If anyone can be a millionaire, it seems the odds of being in that 18,000 and not the 300 million who aren’t, well those are lousy odds.

I’m especially interested in data about inherited wealth. The 18 families worth $185 billion that hired a lobbyist to repeal the estate tax suggests there is a massive amount of wealth concentrated in very few hands. Yet details about that group seem well hidden. You’re more likely to hear about CEO pay or Wall Street bonuses which probably is small beer compared to old money.

In any event, thank you for the additional data!

]]>By: davidcayjohnstonhttp://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-823
davidcayjohnstonWed, 31 Mar 2010 12:41:40 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-823The $344.8 million average income for the Top 400 Taxpayers I broke the story about was 2007. That was up 31%, or about $80 million, from 2006.
The issues so thoughtfully discussed here -- in contrast to the drunken bar level posts of most blogs -- is a delight to discover.
The issues of income, wealth and inequality are subtle, complex and too little discussed in the news or by politicians.
Few people understand that we have changed our system from one with a top marginal tax rate (not average or effective, but on the last dollar) of 91% during the GOP Eisenhower years when the middle class had its greatest growth to Reaganism, where in 2007 the bottom 90% had smaller average income than it did back in 1973.
What we have developed is a redistribution system that redistributes UP, way up.
Entire industries and companies derive all of their profits from hidden subsidies. Some companies legally embed taxes into monopoly prices that you are forced to pay, but then never turn the money over to government, also legally. Many people enjoy huge incomes and legally pay no taxes, which is why it is important to keep in mind that my report was on the official data on the top 400 taxpayers -- there is no official report on the top 400 incomes.
And all of this is achieved through mind-numbing complexity than I turn into plain English in PERFECTLY LEGAL(Taxes) and FREE LUNCH (subsidies),. both of which were national bestsellers. A third book in the series will be out in the fall: THE FINE PRINT.
To get our economy back on track we have to stop treating tax as a four-letter word unworthy of consideration and understand, as the Founders did, that taxes are the government. Indeed, that is why the first Republic failed in the 1780s.
In Perfectly Legal (the paperback) you can also learn how the invention of the moral basis for progressive taxes gave birth to democracy.
The system we have know, in which working class Americans bear a heavier tax burden than the very richest among us, is not a progressive system. Progresisve taxation stops, statistically, at around the $10 million income level.
And BTW, in 2007 the only income group in America whose average income rose was the 18,000 plus taxpayers who made more than $10 million that year.The $344.8 million average income for the Top 400 Taxpayers I broke the story about was 2007. That was up 31%, or about $80 million, from 2006.

The issues so thoughtfully discussed here — in contrast to the drunken bar level posts of most blogs — is a delight to discover.

The issues of income, wealth and inequality are subtle, complex and too little discussed in the news or by politicians.

Few people understand that we have changed our system from one with a top marginal tax rate (not average or effective, but on the last dollar) of 91% during the GOP Eisenhower years when the middle class had its greatest growth to Reaganism, where in 2007 the bottom 90% had smaller average income than it did back in 1973.

What we have developed is a redistribution system that redistributes UP, way up.

Entire industries and companies derive all of their profits from hidden subsidies. Some companies legally embed taxes into monopoly prices that you are forced to pay, but then never turn the money over to government, also legally. Many people enjoy huge incomes and legally pay no taxes, which is why it is important to keep in mind that my report was on the official data on the top 400 taxpayers — there is no official report on the top 400 incomes.

And all of this is achieved through mind-numbing complexity than I turn into plain English in PERFECTLY LEGAL(Taxes) and FREE LUNCH (subsidies),. both of which were national bestsellers. A third book in the series will be out in the fall: THE FINE PRINT.

To get our economy back on track we have to stop treating tax as a four-letter word unworthy of consideration and understand, as the Founders did, that taxes are the government. Indeed, that is why the first Republic failed in the 1780s.

In Perfectly Legal (the paperback) you can also learn how the invention of the moral basis for progressive taxes gave birth to democracy.

The system we have know, in which working class Americans bear a heavier tax burden than the very richest among us, is not a progressive system. Progresisve taxation stops, statistically, at around the $10 million income level.

And BTW, in 2007 the only income group in America whose average income rose was the 18,000 plus taxpayers who made more than $10 million that year.

]]>By: Megan Cottrellhttp://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-821
Megan CottrellWed, 31 Mar 2010 03:23:09 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-821Yes, definitely. A college degree is not what it used to be, especially a liberal arts degree.
I just meet a lot of people who would like to get a degree in jobs that are growing - like health care - but don't have the basic skills to even apply. There's this great place in Chicago that does a bridge program for public housing residents, helping them increase their basic math and reading skills while learning about health care so that they can get into a program. The graduates are really amazing! They're so motivated. Anyway, we're obviously on the same page here.
I actually just wrote a piece about why I chose to go to a less fancy school to escape student loan debt (http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/03/21/fear-of-student-loan-debt-made-me-skip-fancy-schools-for-a-free-one/), so I am lucky not to have school debt, but so many people I know do. And many of them graduate without a degree that will get their loans paid off, which is scary. We have a huge generation of people already saddled with debt, with little prospect of getting a job and too poor of credit to qualify for a mortgage. That's a scary prospect for our future communities.
Thank you for your kind comments. So many people leave ridiculous, insulting comments (as is the nature of the internet), that I wish I had enough cash to send people $5 when they left a nice one. So, good karma to you :)Yes, definitely. A college degree is not what it used to be, especially a liberal arts degree.

I just meet a lot of people who would like to get a degree in jobs that are growing – like health care – but don’t have the basic skills to even apply. There’s this great place in Chicago that does a bridge program for public housing residents, helping them increase their basic math and reading skills while learning about health care so that they can get into a program. The graduates are really amazing! They’re so motivated. Anyway, we’re obviously on the same page here.

I actually just wrote a piece about why I chose to go to a less fancy school to escape student loan debt (http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/03/21/fear-of-student-loan-debt-made-me-skip-fancy-schools-for-a-free-one/), so I am lucky not to have school debt, but so many people I know do. And many of them graduate without a degree that will get their loans paid off, which is scary. We have a huge generation of people already saddled with debt, with little prospect of getting a job and too poor of credit to qualify for a mortgage. That’s a scary prospect for our future communities.

Thank you for your kind comments. So many people leave ridiculous, insulting comments (as is the nature of the internet), that I wish I had enough cash to send people $5 when they left a nice one. So, good karma to you

]]>By: marsgirlkahttp://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-820
marsgirlkaWed, 31 Mar 2010 02:57:27 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-820Oh wait! Heaven's NO! I didn't mean to imply that we should just become a nation of high school graduates and no one should go to college! :)
What I meant in a larger context was that in light of all the labor studies showing that the largest growth over the next decade is for low-wage stuff like retail and service work because of the dismantling of the working class since the Reagan era, the real problem is "quality" jobs because the QUANTITY of them are fewer and fewer as they are shipped overseas, etc.
You bet we need educated kids to do R&D and innovation. I just am afraid to see so many young people run off to college to get a general degree (or older ones returning), only to come out saddled in student loan debt and fighting/competing for a seat at a rapidly-dwindling table.
College enrollment rates are through the roof (along with tuition) and Obama removing the profiteering banks and their usury student loans from the equation are great signs. However, it seems like until the Boomers retire, there's no place to put all the newly-minted, but highly-indebted graduates.
As far as your ticket out of poverty, keep doing what you're doing and your day will come. It will be because of your talent and compassion; your degree will be incidental.
(And as an off-topic aside, don't let people try to railroad you on your credentials like I saw on the comments on one of your other posts. You don't need to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing. All the credentialed people somehow couldn't seem to figure out there was a housing collapse afoot, even though it was the cover story in Harpers magazine--complete with diagrams--in May 2006!! Robert McNamara had credentials, too, and look where THAT got the country...)Oh wait! Heaven’s NO! I didn’t mean to imply that we should just become a nation of high school graduates and no one should go to college!

What I meant in a larger context was that in light of all the labor studies showing that the largest growth over the next decade is for low-wage stuff like retail and service work because of the dismantling of the working class since the Reagan era, the real problem is “quality” jobs because the QUANTITY of them are fewer and fewer as they are shipped overseas, etc.

You bet we need educated kids to do R&D and innovation. I just am afraid to see so many young people run off to college to get a general degree (or older ones returning), only to come out saddled in student loan debt and fighting/competing for a seat at a rapidly-dwindling table.

College enrollment rates are through the roof (along with tuition) and Obama removing the profiteering banks and their usury student loans from the equation are great signs. However, it seems like until the Boomers retire, there’s no place to put all the newly-minted, but highly-indebted graduates.

As far as your ticket out of poverty, keep doing what you’re doing and your day will come. It will be because of your talent and compassion; your degree will be incidental.

(And as an off-topic aside, don’t let people try to railroad you on your credentials like I saw on the comments on one of your other posts. You don’t need to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing. All the credentialed people somehow couldn’t seem to figure out there was a housing collapse afoot, even though it was the cover story in Harpers magazine–complete with diagrams–in May 2006!! Robert McNamara had credentials, too, and look where THAT got the country…)

]]>By: dorbyhttp://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-819
dorbyWed, 31 Mar 2010 01:45:27 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-819As a man of 26 currently living in poverty, you hit the nail on the head. My parents came here in the 90s with nothing but the bags they carried with them from the airport, we lived in a motel for a month, then in a 1 bedroom apartment, 2 kids, 2 adults for 12 years.
They also bought into this "American Dream" of study hard,work hard and you can have a house, car, good job and a secure future.
The reality is far from it,living paycheck to paycheck and the social nepotism of the affluent drives that wedge even deeper. It's simple to me, the more you earn in this country, the more you should give back via taxes, nothing I've seen so far has proven that the top earners in America spend more on improving the economy if they are taxed less. If it were so, I must have missed the Bush administration's boom years of unbridled wealth for all.
Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that people earning 30k and below shouldn't be taxed AT ALL.As a man of 26 currently living in poverty, you hit the nail on the head. My parents came here in the 90s with nothing but the bags they carried with them from the airport, we lived in a motel for a month, then in a 1 bedroom apartment, 2 kids, 2 adults for 12 years.

They also bought into this “American Dream” of study hard,work hard and you can have a house, car, good job and a secure future.

The reality is far from it,living paycheck to paycheck and the social nepotism of the affluent drives that wedge even deeper. It’s simple to me, the more you earn in this country, the more you should give back via taxes, nothing I’ve seen so far has proven that the top earners in America spend more on improving the economy if they are taxed less. If it were so, I must have missed the Bush administration’s boom years of unbridled wealth for all.

Heck, I’d even go so far as to say that people earning 30k and below shouldn’t be taxed AT ALL.

]]>By: tim35http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-818
tim35Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:02:32 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-818"But, I totally agree with you on the growing wealth gap between rich and working class Americans and the need to fix it. But what’s your take on taxing the super rich? Will it slow down investment and innovation in a sluggish economy? I get that argument a lot here."
I've thought a lot about this issue having grown up in an extremely wealthy part of the US (not because we were wealthy but because the best school was in that community) and for a few years as an adult.
First, re-taxing the wealthiest (let's say dollars earned over five million or ten million in a year) will not slow down investment and innovation. You can argue correctly that all this extra money lavished on the wealthiest over the past few decades has fueled the various bubbles we've suffered through, from the dot com bust to the real estate bust and a few in between. Money must go somewhere and people who have massive amounts of it tend to invest with hedge funds and anyone else who can work their money. That, in turn, leads to comparatively useless uses for money.
If that money went instead to the government, for example, the other 99% of American taxpayers might not need to pay as much in taxes. We could have health care, subsidized college, research and development grants, an industrial policy that promotes green energy and US jobs. That would generate far more economic activity than we have seen these past three decades. Indeed, countries with great income inequality tend to suffer boom and bust cycles more than countries that have strong progressive taxation.
But there's also a moral and practical aspect to excessive wealth. You cannot create wealth period without massive taxpayer funded expenditures in courts (to enforce contracts), roads and bridges (to transport goods), education and research (to get educated employees and basic materials), fire and police, water, and so on. Taxing the wealthiest is exactly the same as Warren Buffett demanding a reasonable rate of return on his investment. Taxpayers deserve the same return. If Warren gives you a dollar and you make ten dollars, you better believe he'll show up at your door asking for his cut of your nine dollar profit. Taxpayers deserve the same respect for their infrastructure investments, especially since wealth is impossible without that investment.
But also think of the morality of making 344 million dollars in a year with an effective tax rate of 16.7% (as David Cay Johnston reported recently was the average for the top 400 income earners in 2006 or 2007)? So their take home for $344 million was about 285 million with taxes paid at about 59 million. In English, invested at 5%, 285 million generates 14 million a year and 1 million a month for doing nothing but breathe. Let those numbers sink in. The average US salary is about 40,000 a year, I believe.
Now imagine if that person kept 100 million of their money and wrote a check to taxpayers for 244 million to cover taxpayer funded infrastructure that made that wealth possible. At 5% interest on their 100 million, they'd make 5 million a year and 416,000 a month, again for doing nothing for more than breathe. How much money, in short, is too much money? Insisting the wealthiest only pay 16.7% effective tax rate means our society as a whole has to forgo much of what we need so that this wealthy person can earn a million a month instead of 400,000 a month. It's beyond selfish. Indeed, it reminds me of Imelda Marcos and her 3,000 pairs of shoes, enough to wear a new pair every day for eight years. At some point, we as a society have to step up and set the limits for wealth.
Finally, while I whole heartedly support everyone's right to make as much money as they can, there also is an issue around trust fund wealth. You can argue second generation gets some money because they were part of the family and may have been poor while Dad or Mom got rich. But grandchildren? Great grandchildren? It's the same moral question: where do you draw the line between a natural selfish and human interest in keeping as much money as you make with the society and taxpayer's equal right to a fair return and a just society?
Sorry to go on but this is not a simple subject. It does not fit on a bumper sticker. And it requires people to think with both their hearts and their heads. Trust me, we can do better than we have since 1980 when it comes to wealth in our society.“But, I totally agree with you on the growing wealth gap between rich and working class Americans and the need to fix it. But what’s your take on taxing the super rich? Will it slow down investment and innovation in a sluggish economy? I get that argument a lot here.”

I’ve thought a lot about this issue having grown up in an extremely wealthy part of the US (not because we were wealthy but because the best school was in that community) and for a few years as an adult.

First, re-taxing the wealthiest (let’s say dollars earned over five million or ten million in a year) will not slow down investment and innovation. You can argue correctly that all this extra money lavished on the wealthiest over the past few decades has fueled the various bubbles we’ve suffered through, from the dot com bust to the real estate bust and a few in between. Money must go somewhere and people who have massive amounts of it tend to invest with hedge funds and anyone else who can work their money. That, in turn, leads to comparatively useless uses for money.

If that money went instead to the government, for example, the other 99% of American taxpayers might not need to pay as much in taxes. We could have health care, subsidized college, research and development grants, an industrial policy that promotes green energy and US jobs. That would generate far more economic activity than we have seen these past three decades. Indeed, countries with great income inequality tend to suffer boom and bust cycles more than countries that have strong progressive taxation.

But there’s also a moral and practical aspect to excessive wealth. You cannot create wealth period without massive taxpayer funded expenditures in courts (to enforce contracts), roads and bridges (to transport goods), education and research (to get educated employees and basic materials), fire and police, water, and so on. Taxing the wealthiest is exactly the same as Warren Buffett demanding a reasonable rate of return on his investment. Taxpayers deserve the same return. If Warren gives you a dollar and you make ten dollars, you better believe he’ll show up at your door asking for his cut of your nine dollar profit. Taxpayers deserve the same respect for their infrastructure investments, especially since wealth is impossible without that investment.

But also think of the morality of making 344 million dollars in a year with an effective tax rate of 16.7% (as David Cay Johnston reported recently was the average for the top 400 income earners in 2006 or 2007)? So their take home for $344 million was about 285 million with taxes paid at about 59 million. In English, invested at 5%, 285 million generates 14 million a year and 1 million a month for doing nothing but breathe. Let those numbers sink in. The average US salary is about 40,000 a year, I believe.

Now imagine if that person kept 100 million of their money and wrote a check to taxpayers for 244 million to cover taxpayer funded infrastructure that made that wealth possible. At 5% interest on their 100 million, they’d make 5 million a year and 416,000 a month, again for doing nothing for more than breathe. How much money, in short, is too much money? Insisting the wealthiest only pay 16.7% effective tax rate means our society as a whole has to forgo much of what we need so that this wealthy person can earn a million a month instead of 400,000 a month. It’s beyond selfish. Indeed, it reminds me of Imelda Marcos and her 3,000 pairs of shoes, enough to wear a new pair every day for eight years. At some point, we as a society have to step up and set the limits for wealth.

Finally, while I whole heartedly support everyone’s right to make as much money as they can, there also is an issue around trust fund wealth. You can argue second generation gets some money because they were part of the family and may have been poor while Dad or Mom got rich. But grandchildren? Great grandchildren? It’s the same moral question: where do you draw the line between a natural selfish and human interest in keeping as much money as you make with the society and taxpayer’s equal right to a fair return and a just society?

Sorry to go on but this is not a simple subject. It does not fit on a bumper sticker. And it requires people to think with both their hearts and their heads. Trust me, we can do better than we have since 1980 when it comes to wealth in our society.

]]>By: What agency will investigate fraud, abuse or illegal activity in government medical insurance programs? | Victor Theriault MDhttp://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-817
What agency will investigate fraud, abuse or illegal activity in government medical insurance programs? | Victor Theriault MDTue, 30 Mar 2010 23:46:49 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-817[...] Why can’t people escape poverty? It’s not income, it’s wealth – Megan Cottre... [...][...] Why can’t people escape poverty? It’s not income, it’s wealth – Megan Cottre… [...]
]]>By: Megan Cottrellhttp://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-816
Megan CottrellTue, 30 Mar 2010 21:52:41 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-816We're obviously behind! I've been meaning to pick up "Bright-Sided" so thanks for the information.
I think basic education and technical education can still be a big help. I volunteer with kids, who in middle school, struggle to read or write on a basic level. They describe classes with 40+ students where there's not enough toilet paper or lined paper to go around. A poor elementary education disqualifies them from the nicer high schools in the city, and they get further and further behind.
Education can't help you from getting your job shipped overseas, unless we can educate our children for the information age we live in. If our kids aren't educated, they won't be able to spur the kind of innovation we need to overcome creative destruction.
But, I will say, my college degree certainly wasn't a ticket out of poverty.
Thanks again for commenting. I will pick up that book!We’re obviously behind! I’ve been meaning to pick up “Bright-Sided” so thanks for the information.

I think basic education and technical education can still be a big help. I volunteer with kids, who in middle school, struggle to read or write on a basic level. They describe classes with 40+ students where there’s not enough toilet paper or lined paper to go around. A poor elementary education disqualifies them from the nicer high schools in the city, and they get further and further behind.

Education can’t help you from getting your job shipped overseas, unless we can educate our children for the information age we live in. If our kids aren’t educated, they won’t be able to spur the kind of innovation we need to overcome creative destruction.

But, I will say, my college degree certainly wasn’t a ticket out of poverty.

Thanks again for commenting. I will pick up that book!

]]>By: Megan Cottrellhttp://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-815
Megan CottrellTue, 30 Mar 2010 21:47:25 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-815Hey Tim -
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments.
I respectfully disagree - in part. The "wealth" I was talking about is not necessarily a monetary level. Being able to get a mortgage on a house gives you the kind of equity that makes you able to co-sign on student loans, car loans and apartment leases. It means you probably have health insurance for your kids, and live in a decent enough neighborhood for your kids to go to a decent public school.
Is it Coach bags and Jaguars? No. But it's the little push that people like Peterson didn't get when they were kids. Rather than having the money to set up a trust fund for your kids, it's having an extra few hundred dollars to get them out of a bind once and awhile, so they don't fall behind on their bills or get evicted.
But, I totally agree with you on the growing wealth gap between rich and working class Americans and the need to fix it. But what's your take on taxing the super rich? Will it slow down investment and innovation in a sluggish economy? I get that argument a lot here.Hey Tim –

Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments.

I respectfully disagree – in part. The “wealth” I was talking about is not necessarily a monetary level. Being able to get a mortgage on a house gives you the kind of equity that makes you able to co-sign on student loans, car loans and apartment leases. It means you probably have health insurance for your kids, and live in a decent enough neighborhood for your kids to go to a decent public school.

Is it Coach bags and Jaguars? No. But it’s the little push that people like Peterson didn’t get when they were kids. Rather than having the money to set up a trust fund for your kids, it’s having an extra few hundred dollars to get them out of a bind once and awhile, so they don’t fall behind on their bills or get evicted.

But, I totally agree with you on the growing wealth gap between rich and working class Americans and the need to fix it. But what’s your take on taxing the super rich? Will it slow down investment and innovation in a sluggish economy? I get that argument a lot here.

]]>By: marsgirlkahttp://trueslant.com/megancottrell/2010/03/30/why-cant-people-escape-poverty-its-not-income-its-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-813
marsgirlkaTue, 30 Mar 2010 21:13:07 +0000http://trueslant.com/megancottrell/?p=1051#comment-813Actually, you're all about 5 years behind w/the Barbara Ehrenreich stuff. :)
In her latest book, "Bright Sided", Ehrenreich notes on page 180 that, "Americans are less likely to move upward from their class of origin than are Germans, Canadians (Caitlin!), Finns, French, Swedes Norwegians, or Danes."
She goes on to further add, "As two researchers at the Brookings Institution observed, a little wryly, in 2006: '[The] strong belief in opportunity and upward mobility is the explanation that is often given for Americans' high tolerance for inequality. The majority of Americans surveyed believe that they will be above mean income in the future (even though that is a mathematical impossibility).'"
So if the Horatio Alger myth would just die the death it deserves and that is long overdue, there might be an inkling of economic justice and equality in this country.
And given the current economic climate, where Ph.D.'s are applying for waitress jobs, etc. just to survive, I'm not sure education is the answer. It's a numbers game, and all the education in the world isn't going to help when your job is shipped overseas, etc. Education is not going to stop the system from being broken; it may only just give you a slightly better life raft within the broken system.
Caitlin is right, unfortunately: it's not what you know, but who you know, that is your best bet. And Peterson obviously never had a chance on that one.Actually, you’re all about 5 years behind w/the Barbara Ehrenreich stuff.

In her latest book, “Bright Sided”, Ehrenreich notes on page 180 that, “Americans are less likely to move upward from their class of origin than are Germans, Canadians (Caitlin!), Finns, French, Swedes Norwegians, or Danes.”

She goes on to further add, “As two researchers at the Brookings Institution observed, a little wryly, in 2006: ‘[The] strong belief in opportunity and upward mobility is the explanation that is often given for Americans’ high tolerance for inequality. The majority of Americans surveyed believe that they will be above mean income in the future (even though that is a mathematical impossibility).’”

So if the Horatio Alger myth would just die the death it deserves and that is long overdue, there might be an inkling of economic justice and equality in this country.

And given the current economic climate, where Ph.D.’s are applying for waitress jobs, etc. just to survive, I’m not sure education is the answer. It’s a numbers game, and all the education in the world isn’t going to help when your job is shipped overseas, etc. Education is not going to stop the system from being broken; it may only just give you a slightly better life raft within the broken system.

Caitlin is right, unfortunately: it’s not what you know, but who you know, that is your best bet. And Peterson obviously never had a chance on that one.